Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie
linguistlist.org>
Gutknecht, Christoph & Rolle, Lutz J. (1996) TRANSLATING BY FACTORS. State University of New York Press, Albany. 346 pp. Through a thorough case study of the difficulties involved in translating English language modals into German (and vice-versa), the authors develop a 'state-of-the-art' exposition of translation theory and practice. In order to do so they must elaborate and elaborate upon theoretical considerations, taxonomies and methodologies that are both polyvalent and interdisciplinary. The result is interesting from the point of view of both linguistics and translation studies. Their bibliography of linguistic-oriented studies and of translation-oriented studies is both complete and up to date, and their application of previous studies successfully integrates a variety of approaches. In addition to being interdisciplinary, their approach is fully conscious of the complexities involved in the dynamic, relativistic and multifarious nature of the translation process, and of the consequent impossibility of ever being able to establish a static or absolutist model of translation. As a result, they refer to the possible TL 'renditions' of a given SL text, rather than its possible 'translations'. By limiting their case study to modals in English and German, the authors have chosen a very effective way to limit the linguistic domain under study. The fact that this domain can be described quite well syntactically also facilitates the establishment of categories of pragmatic usage, and this combination provides solid support for componential semantic analysis. Their analysis of the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, stylistic, discourse analysis and text linguistic factors involved in describing, if not always entirely delimiting, the meaning and usage of modals in both German and English, is in itself a quite solid study. This study serves to establish a range of factors that can be applied to the preliminary analysis of modals as used in a given source language (SL) text, in order to establish a hierarchy of factors and factor sets and of relations between factors and their sets, that could orientate the translator's choice of possible semantic, pragmatic and stylistic meanings to be transferred to a given possible target language (TL) text. Once the range of possible SL meanings has been established, the same procedure may be applied to the possible or permissible uses of modals in the TL in order to establish or to test strategies for elaborating parallel modal constructions, including the compatibility or incompatibility of SL and TL modal parallels. The factors under consideration include invariance factors that would require a SL feature to appear in the TL rendition, or change factors or partial change factors that would not; bidirectional factors or unidirectional factors, and blocking or incompatibility factors that would make certain TL renditions possible or impossible; compensation factors for the indeterminacy of the SL text or incompatibility with the TL; identification factors of SL characteristics and disambiguation factors for the SL text. In addition there are a series of factors more specifically related to the process of translation, such as production factors that contribute to creating the TL text; target factors that condition the nature or purpose of the TL text according to the client's requirements; optimising factors and revision factors relating to the style of the TL text; elliptical factors that allow for omission, divergence factors that give rise to a one-to-many relation between the SL and TL texts, or convergence factors that give rise to a many-to-one relation; as well as transposition and modulation factors. Finally, there are relevant factors that can be brought to bear on prioritising the alternative strategies that might be employed to generate one rendition or another. Their linguistic study of modals serves as the launching pad for a very complex and complete presentation of factors to be considered in the translation of modal constructions. This study is so thorough that it could be usefully applied (as the authors themselves indicate) to the development of natural language processing (NLP) rules for computational linguistics parsers of modals (in English and German). At the same time their awareness of the complex range of ambiguities that may arise in the process of parsing specific examples of modals ensures that they maintain a very open and flexible approach. In this respect, it is quite interesting to see how they integrate both fuzzy set theory and the statistical analysis of linguistic corpora into their considerations. The presentation and development of their approach is quite orderly and clear and the sample texts chosen for illustrative purpose are both 'authentic' (in the sense of being taken from published texts, not texts invented for the purpose of illustration) and quite to the point. One of the most refreshing aspects of their study is its avoidance of any dogmatic considerations that would have to govern translation practice. They do conclude that 'translating by factors is in fact inevitable' and that 'translating factors turn out to be the felicity conditions for each act of translating': 'Just as there is a set of felicity conditions defining a particular kind of monolingual speech act, different sets of translation factors will characterize different kinds of translation acts. And just as felicity conditions can be turned into rules for performing speech acts, factors sets can be made rules according to which the act of translation is performed'. This possibility of making rules is qualified by the declaration that 'because each commission involves its own factor set, each act of translating will follow its individual combination of rules'. The possible applications of this study are multiple. It could be very relevant to the study of modals in linguistics. In the case of translation it could serve, as the authors indicate, to distinguish factors in 1) the training of translators and interpreters, 2) the assessment of quality and adequacy of translations, and/or 3) determining the translation of certain text classes. These distinctions are particularly relevant to the current state of translation studies, as is their integration into a holistic approach in this study. Translatology could imply the practice of translation and its teaching, or the assessment of specific translations, or the development of a theory of translation. Experts in the current state of translation studies will find in this book a very thorough, informed and balanced review of the most important classical and recent texts on translation as well as an especially apt application of these studies to sets of case studies of individual texts that are marked by modals, framed by a well-defined and elaborated general study of modals. Non-experts will find a very clear introduction to classical and more recent aspects of translation theory and studies with all of the relevant bibliography and very clear and understandable examples. If there is a shortcoming to their approach, and within the terms they have themselves set for their study there is very little that falls short, I would venture to say that it is a shortcoming that is still common to text linguistics approaches in general: the attempt to systematise as much as possible the analysis of a given text (to the point of making it mechanical in the case of NLP), requires the elaboration of a set of rules and/or algorithms for identifying specific characteristics that will overdetermine the possible usage and/or meaning of a text (and thereby delimit its possible interpretations and/or renditions). Natural language processing, which is touched upon tangentially in this study as a field that could benefit from the kind of rules-based approach to determining the factors that constrain the meanings of texts that use modals, would represent one pole of this approach. The opposite pole would be the relativism that characterises some fields of cultural studies (as exemplified by deconstructionism in literary studies for instance). Just as the authors carefully and explicitly avoid falling into the pitfalls of any dogmatic rules-based approach to translating, I think that the field of text linguistics in general should be fitted into a more panoramic view of the role of language as a social phenomenon. I do not think that questions involving semiotics and ideology, for instance, can be divorced from the linguistic analysis of a text. Rule-based text linguistics runs the danger of being too positivistic. The authors of this study are conscious of this danger and address the problem directly in a chapter devoted to the factors involved in the definition of the translation 'unit', that range from the morpheme to the entire text, including the entire text's relation to text type or genre and too still higher levels of sociolect and discourse. They are also quite open on the subject of text equivalents and the shifting relationship the links 'translation' to 'adaptation' (or separates them, as the case may be. The final modest conclusion of this very impressive study is that it might indicate 'a promising path toward a theory of translating successfully'. That final adverb is certainly significant and does represent the authors' taking a stand on some of the issues I have just mentioned. All in all, this is a very worthwhile text on translation and an important contribution to the field of translation studies. Sean Golden is the Dean of the Faculty of Translation & Interpreting of the Universitat Autonom de Barcelona in Spain. He has published articles on translator training and on the difficulties of cross-cultural transfer in the translation of texts widely separated in space and time (such as ancient Chinese texts in modern European languages), and has edited and translated collections of Chinese poetry in English and in Catalan. Sean Golden <sgoldenMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuecc.uab.es>